Pursuing LL.M. course does not count as break in law practice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that pursuing a Master's course in law does not count as a break in practice of a lawyer [Karan Antil v. High Court of Delhi]..The Court referred to a December 2009 resolution of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Supreme Court's observations in the Deepak Aggarwal case to hold that an advocate would continue to be considered in practice during the period he pursues a full-time LL.M. course as a regular student. .A Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan further said that the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) eligibility criterion of being in practice for seven years does not require any inquiry into the actual area of practice of an advocate. “If a person is enrolled as an advocate for a period of seven years prior to the date of the application, he would satisfy the eligibility criteria unless it is established that he was not entitled for being so enrolled as an advocate; had suspended his practice either voluntarily or otherwise; or had accepted an engagement or vocation, which was impermissible as an advocate,” the Court held..The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a candidate named Karan Antil who had appeared for the DHJS exams. Antil challenged the inclusion of three people in the select list of candidates on various grounds.The eligibility of one of the candidates was challenged on the ground that he had pursued a full time Master of Law Program at the University College London (UCL) from September 2015 to June 2016. and therefore, the continuous period of practice for respondent was required to be reckoned from June 2016..After considering the facts, the Bench noted that the petitioner would be entitled to inclusion in the select list only if he prevails in his challenge to the appointment of all the three candidates.The Court, therefore, decided to deal with challenge to the eligibility of the candidate whose appointment was challenged on the grounds of his studying abroad.It examined Article 233 (2) of the Indian Constitution and Rule 9(2) of the DHJS rules to hold that there is no material difference in the eligibility criteria for an advocate to be appointed as a district judge between the two provisions.“…we reject the contention that Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules contemplates the condition of active practice as an advocate, in addition to the eligibility criteria stipulated under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that the Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules has to be read embodying the eligibility criteria for appointment of an advocate as set out in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.”.The Court also rejected the argument that requirement of seven years' standing at the Bar is materially different from the phrase “must have practiced as an Advocate” as contained in the DHJS Rules.“We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention that the requirement of seven years standing at the Bar is materially different from the eligibility criteria as set out in Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules or Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India… The criteria that a candidate who has practiced for not less than seven years is not different than the requirement of not less than seven years standing at the Bar.”.Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal and Advocate Praveen Kumar appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Dr Amit George, Piyo Harold Jainmon, Amil Acharya, Raya Durgam Bharat and Arkaneil Bhaumik appeared for the High Court of Delhi.Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appeared for Respondent No 3.Senior Advocates Sachin Puri and Akshay Makhija along with Advocates Praveen Kumar Sharma, Nidhi Rana, Praveen Kumar, Mitesh Tiwari, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Manish Bhardwaj, Devansh A Mahta, Mrigank Prabhakar and Sakshi Banga, Rinku Parewa, Nikhil Jayant, Nitesh Kumar and Sahil Khurana appeared for other respondents..[Read Order]